Currently, the British do not buy many electric vehicles. In 2012 a total of roughly 2 million cars were sold to British buyers. Meanwhile the top-selling hybrid electric vehicle, Toyota Motor Corp.'s (TYO:7203) Prius moved only 13,000 units (about 0.6 percent of total sales), while the Plug-in Prius saw 470 sales -- even more miniscule. In total only 3,600 PHEVs or BEVs have sold in the UK since the launch a £5,000 ($7,750 USD) tax incentive in mid 2010.

By contrast nearly 435,000 hybrids were sold in the U.S. last year [source], accounting for approximately 3 percent of sales. While BEV sales were slow, combined BEV and PHEV sales moved nearly 53,000 units in the U.S. in 2012. These numbers indicate that the U.S. is likely selling at least twice the number of electric vehicles and hybrids -- percentage wise -- as Britain.

A second plank of the proposed platform calls for airfare taxes to be replaced with a more significant carbon tax. The party describes:

[Air passenger duty would be replaced with] per-plane duty, charged in proportion to the carbon emissions created by that journey.

That move is intended to stoke the use of biofuels and cut down on "frivolous" air travel.

One thing such critics of these proposals will likely appreciate is that the party calls for expansion of Britain's nuclear power and natural gas shale exploration/extraction. The proposal calls on cutting legal red tape to increasing use of nuclear and natural gas for the nation's energy.

The plan does call for the expansion of clean nuclear energy. [Image Source: Corbis]

Among the proposed changes would be to allow for fracking -- hydraulic fracturing -- a process in which pressurized/heat water and chemicals is injected into sites containing oil or natural gas in order to extract it. The process is controversial as some have suggested it might cause earthquakes; however, at present the evidence supporting that hypothesis remains far from conclusive. The proposal to drop the party's opposition to fracking does come with some provisions. The party writes:

[Fracking can commence so long as] regulations controlling pollution and protecting local environmental quality are strictly enforced, planning decisions remain with local authorities and local communities are fully consulted over extraction and fully compensated for all damage to the local landscape.

Experts have estimated that 700 million barrels of oil or more a year could be extracted from oil shale in two areas of Surrey and Sussex.

The proposals -- which aim to create a "zero-carbon" Britain (a rather humorous term, surely) might not be taken seriously were it not for the Liberal Democrats' key role as kingmaker in the British government. By entering into a coalition with the center-right Conservative party (while ironically bucking the center-left Labour Party), the Conservatives were able to command leadership of the country, including the role of prime minister, which is currently filled by Conservative party leader David Cameron.

In order to stay in power, the Conservative government must make major concessions to their Liberal Democrat allies, despite having a significantly larger head count in Parliament. Thus as absurd as the idea of banning all non-electric vehicles from the streets of Britain sounds, if the Liberal Democrats pass the proposal, their Conservative allies may be forced to listen.

And long before it "runs out" it will simply become more expensive to get. And as it becomes more expensive, "alternatives" will start to look more attractive. And as those alternatives become more attractive, they will see greater and greater adoption.

It's almost like a self-correcting problem.

But hey, let's ignore the guy that's not making a penny to say these things, let's instead put our trust in Al "No, No Ulterior Motive Here" Gore as he makes half a billion dollars on carbon credits and enjoys his five lavish mansions and private planes. Hell, even Dubya is more environmentally friendly than Gore.

EVs aren't going to replace oil overnight. It takes decades to first ramp up production capabilities and then flush out 200M existing cars. It's also important for the threat of alternatives to keep OPEC from further manipulating oil prices with their quotas.

Because more people know of him than say Maurice Strong, one of the real profiteers on the global warming hype train -- former CEO of Petro-Canada (a government oil company created in the 1980s to rob one region of Canada for the benefit of another) who helped create the Kyoto accord, and lives in Beijing with his new masters reaping the rewards.

quote: And long before it "runs out" it will simply become more expensive to get.

The problem is if everybody pushes EVs the demand for gas will decrease so it'll keep gas prices at a steady rate. Also, every oil producing country HAS to honestly report its capacity otherwise everyone will continue to think there's a good supply left but all of a sudden run out.

quote: the demand for gas will decrease so it'll keep gas prices at a steady rate.

Demand for "gasoline" may decrease, but demand for "oil" will continue to go up. "Oil" is used for more than just "gasoline", you know.

If demand for gasoline drops, so what? Doesn't that mean some other viable fuel/energy storage medium has been developed and become commonplace? The need to move things and people isn't going to go away.